nt_place_order

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it places an order and lists order types, but does not mention execution risks, account selection behavior, validation requirements, or any side effects of placing an order. For a potentially market-moving action, this is a notable transparency gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, object, and scope without any redundant or vague wording. Every word adds value, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter trading action with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits return values (e.g., order ID), conditional price requirements in prose, default account behavior, and risk information. Sibling tools like nt_close_position present clear alternatives that are not referenced, making the context incomplete for correct agent invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 71%, and the schema already documents instrument, quantity, accountId, stopPrice, and limitPrice with 'Required for' notes. The description adds only 'any instrument' and echoes the orderType enum values already present in the schema. It does not compensate for the 29% gap or explain parameter interactions (e.g., StopLimit requires both prices), but it doesn't mislead either.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description begins with a specific verb ('Place') and a clear resource ('a new order'), and explicitly lists the supported order types (Market, Limit, Stop, StopLimit). The word 'new' distinguishes this from sibling tools like nt_modify_order and nt_cancel_order. This is a precise and unambiguous purpose statement.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nt_close_position for reducing exposure or making directional trades. It also does not explain when to choose Market versus Limit or Stop order types. No context or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.